by Tom Lavercombe

Created on: September 18, 2007

A number of people have written that freedom of speech is something granted to the media; a grant which requires the media to reciprocate by using this freedom responsibly. Implied in this line of thought is the idea that if it is not used responsibly, then freedom of speech can be withdrawn.

Whether or not it is desirable for governments to have this power, the question in practice centers on what is considered to be "responsible" behaviour. I wish here to make the case that responsible behaviour is not, as is often assumed, the limiting of what is said, but the fullest use of that freedom.

Freedom of speech is a valuable political commodity. It has value not just in that it allows things that need to be said to be said, but also has value in its very use - whatever it is being used to say. The recent controversy over the "Danish Cartoons" highlighted this. What was at stake was not so much whether people should be free to publish those cartoons specifically, but whether there should in theory be limits on publishing generally. Some areas, it seems, are off-limits if we are to protect the sensibilities of certain groups. The idea, however, that we can have freedom of speech but only in certain areas seems paradoxical. Yet it is one we live with every day. Most people do not regard restrictions on child pornography as being fatally injurious to freedom of speech. Indeed, it seems like a "good thing". Clearly, though, in some sense it is a bar on free speech. If there is but one thing that we cannot publish, then it could well be said that we do not in fact have freedom of speech at all - or is this a freedom that is divisible? It is my view that some of the value of free speech can be retained even when limits are placed upon it (and that some few of these limits are desirable), but that its value is sharply diminished by every limitation that there is placed upon it. An absolute minimum, therefore, should be the aim of anyone who's work it is to regulate freedom of speech.

Without a reasonably free level of speech political debate vitiates, societies become less free, and human lives become darker and more limited. Even if free speech is used for something not obviously pertaining to issues of politics, it also makes a statement of belief in the values of an open society. Many newspapers reprinted the Danish cartoons, not because they thought them particularly good, or had much sympathy with the sentiments expressed in them, but rather to make a statement in favour of freedom. To return to my original thought - using freedom of speech responsibly does not so much mean limiting what you say, as making sure you use that freedom regularly and in provocative ways. It has value only so long as it becomes a comfortable and regular habit - used only occasionally, and with much worrying about the consequences, it serves only to highlight how much speech is in fact unfree.

Learn more about this author, Tom Lavercombe.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.